Talk:Scientology

" The US State Department has criticised Germany's treatment of Scientologists in its reports on international religious freedom"

Well, they would, wouldn't they?

Can anyone guess where Scientology originated from?

Anyone? 24.69.97.22 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done This passage that gave undue weight to criticism given by a department of one government against another government's policy has been removed. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Quotation formatting

For accessibility and display compatibility, the manual of style (MOS:QUOTE) indicates that quotes should be in blockquote format. Quoteboxes are not generally appropriate in articles as they display vertically on mobile browsers. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Neither of your assertions are correct. Mobile does NOT show {{Quote box}} vertically. (See here https://ibb.co/V38F1Jk) And MOS:QUOTE does NOT say must be in {{Quotebox}}, it says Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

By display vertically I mean that it is not over to one side as it is on a computer browser - one image does not demonstrate otherwise. Instead it displays above the beginning of the following paragraph (i.e. in that case at the beginning of the section before our paragraphs in wikivoice). The text you quoted supports what I wrote: Format a long quote as a block quotation - indicates that quotes should be in blockquote format. It doesn't support your misrepresentation of what I wrote, but that isn't relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp: see Safari on ios and Chrome on ios. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If you had looked at the URL in the screenprint I posted, https://ibb.co/V38F1Jk, you would have noticed it IS the mobile version. If, however, you were referring only to a cell phone format, then please mention that next time. Not only is that quotation not very long, it is a key belief of Scientologists and as such should be more prominently placed than at the bottom of the section—which is where you put it at first, and it looked like crap, overlapping with the section which followed (not unlike placing an image too close to the bottom of a section).

Now that you provided some screenshots, and I checked my own cell phone (which I do not use for Wikipedia), I can see how a cell phone version looks better as a boxquote, though short boxquotes on a larger screen look awful unless you add a |author= parameter. I suppose that's because wiki's mobile version uses a bar along the left of a boxquote making it obvious it is a quote, and the non-mobile version does not (making the indentation look like a mistake or oversight).

I'll try to be more aware of cell and mobile version formatting, and hope you'll try to be more aware of non-mobile version formatting on screens bigger than a few inches.

Question: I'm curious if you always/only use a cell phone to access Wikipedia, or do you use other formats/devices?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Quotes require sourcing

This usually goes without saying, but a reminder that quotes require high-quality sourcing. Please don't add text to quotes that is not in the cited reliable secondary sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Depending on the situation, that can be a requirement but as you wrote it is not a categorical requirement. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I am so sorry that you felt you needed to revert and scold me for making an edit that follows precisely what is in the sources. I guess the correct quotation wasn't sufficiently derogatory of Scientology for your liking. I already did this work yesterday, and I shouldn't have to jump through hoops just to prove you wrong, but here we are. Yet again. (Links to screenshots are provided for ease of access and illustration.)

I had already checked each citation before I made my edit. There were three sources at the time: Senn 1990, Passas n Castillo 1992, and Beit-Hallahmi 2003. Passas mentioned Senn, as well as Behar 1991, so I also looked up Behar. Then curious what policy everyone was quoting from, I searched and found the actual reference by L. Ron Hubbard—first the 1991 version (a revision) and then went looking for and found the 1972 original version.

Both Senn and Beit-Hallahmi had the same language as Hubbard's, whereas Passas did not match. The extra wording in Passas came from Behar (Time Magazine). I don't know where Behar got the extra words because they do not exist in the Hubbard versions of that document. Now you have added Behar 1991 and Harman 2012 as sources. Harman (Haaretz newspaper) doesn't mention where they got it, but the format is the same "run on text" exactly like Behar, including the ellipses.

Now I can hear you saying, "But there are reliable sources that say those extra words", and I will point out that half of your sources have extra language that is not in the original text (a primary source), while the others quote the original text precisely, and in a manner similar to the original text and dissimilar to the run on text of Behar. So one could reasonably conclude that somehow Behar (Time magazine) got it wrong, or was printing a quote from someone they interviewed rather than using the actual printed book from the Church of Scientology that was in print at the time. Some have perpetuated Behar's mistake, while others did not perpetuate the mistake.

Oh dear, what do we do when we have conflicting "reliable sources"? Pondering... which version to use, which version to use. I know, let's use the higher quality sources which actually match the original text from Hubbard. What a concept!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

What is your reliable source for what you describe as the “original version”? An imgbb upload? Oh dear indeed. Contrary to your claim, the reliable sources are not in conflict. The term reliable sources does not in these instances need scare quotes. The phrase you added, "The governing policy of finance in any organization is to", does not appear in any of the cited reliable sources, so your claim above that your edit follows precisely what is in the sources does not bear scrutiny. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

My sources are the actual books. I went to great lengths to make all of those images yesterday and upload them to imgbb.com to assist in illustrating my post above. The blue is computer-generated highlighting. Do you think I'm trying to deceive you? Why would I do that? Or do you think I'm stupid enough to rely on some little image I found on the internet? You should know me better than that by now. If you would actually assume good faith in the first place, then I wouldn't have to go to such lengths to counter your ownership behavior (revert, chide by edit summary, and post more to talk page to 'school' me).

Scare quotes? Lead-in sentence? My focus yesterday was about the fact you were fighting to retain phrases that didn't actually exist in the original source. I wasn't concerned about me having added a lead-in sentence that was literally in the source which I had cited using the |author= parameter. But today you want to nitpick about me not mentioning that yesterday while I was focused on trying to counter your insistence on retaining erroneous extra wording. I discover today that it was you who inserted this paragraph and incorrect quotation in the first place—not surprised, considering the push-back you are engaging in. This is such a waste of time, and the umpteenth bout you've engaged in.

Every edit you make to the Scientology topic articles is geared toward further disparaging the subject, which unbalances NPOV even more, whereas I have added content on both sides of the POV-divide. This is a contentious topic and I cannot sit by while you pick and pick and pick at NPOV: sneaking in vilifying bits here and there (ex ex ex ex ex ex ex ex), removing neutral or positive content (ex ex ex ex), increasing the visibility of negative content (ex ex ex) while reducing the visibility of neutral and positive content (ex ex ex), being aggressive with other editors or bulldozing your preferred version (ex ex ex ex), and transforming this article over time to suit your POV (almost the entire lede is now your authorship).

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not reading yet another of your ridiculous personal attacks. “Sneaking in”? Every edit is visible to anyone. Don’t be absurd. Your imagined (projected?) views of my motivations do not merit discussion.

It is only you who repeatedly takes an aggressive tone with extensive use of bold and groundless accusations on the talk page. You repeatedly fabricate charges of 'ownership' and fail to demonstrate what you claim. Note the short and to-the-point length of my prior responses compared to your umpteenth diatribe.

Back to the topic: the originals are not books, so whatever you took those from are not the original. As is cited in multiple reliable sources, the original is a letter reproduced and sent as “policy” to Scientology franchises in 1972. Similar letters - facsimilies, not retypings of many of which are or were available on enturbulation.org and WikiLeaks - are, unsurprisingly, typed and Xeroxed, not printed, and are thus set in Courier font, not Times New Roman.

The very obviously digitally created documents to which you linked (check the pure white background) are not even the first version from Hubbard’s Management Series 1974. They look identical to OCR copies of the 2001 reprint edition Management Series that have circulated online for years (an authentic reproduction of the 1991 edition of the book - irrelevant to the topic as it is - can be found at the Internet Archive).

Given you evidently have not taken from the original source - a policy letter to Scientology franchisees - but have taken from what appears to be a copy of a book marketed as a secular guide to administration and management, your claim that this is a phrase "that didn't actually exist in the original" has no basis [unnecessary bolding in your original comment]. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp: What is it that you imagine are the contradicting facts for which you've tagged the article? Three reliable sources refer to this quote. No sources deny this quote. There is no evidence of a contradiction. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure there is. Senn 1990 is cited, and it contradicts your preferred version (Behar 1991). There really are only two versions—Senn and Behar. Passas n Castillo 1992 quotes Behar directly, and Harman 2012 too, because Behar and Harman both call the document a "bulletin" when it's a "policy letter"; "bulletin" has a special meaning in Scientology—bulletins are printed red-on-white and are about auditing, whereas policy letters are printed green-on-white and are about organizational administration. The slip in language belies that Harman copied it from Behar (or from someone else who copied Behar).

Senn was published before the 1991 Hubbard version you said was irrelevant to the topic, though they match. And Senn's footnote says they obtained it from the 1985 case Scientology v. Commissioner 83 T.C. 381, 422 1985, which also matches.

Behar's extra wording "make sure that lots of bodies move through the shop" and "however you get them in or why, just do it" doesn't appear anywhere else I can find.

I've presented evidence that the 1972 Hubbard version (published in book form in 1976, which is a reprint of the 1974 first edition) was similar or identical to the 1991 Hubbard version (and Senn's version). That leaves only 1972–1974 for possible differences. Even if you imagine adding those extra words into the A to L list, they just don't make sense there. You have produced no evidence that there ever was some other-worded version that matches Behar (just some guess about franchisees though the policy letter wasn't addressed to franchisees and its content doesn't apply to them).

Using critical thinking skills, if an earlier version of the policy letter had included the extra words, but they were removed before the 1985 case, and were removed before the 1974 book publishing, then what is the likelihood that Behar in 1991 would have been looking at such an [alleged] early version from 1972–1974 instead of all the other versions/copies that would have been printed during the 17 intervening [pre-internet] years since then?

Meanwhile, the quote in the article right this minute (and the minute I tagged it with {{dispute inline}}), is a blend of two versions—the Behar version which contains extra language and no lettered lines, and the Senn version which has lettered lines and no extra language— and keeps the |author= parameter which mentions the 1991 version from the Management Series ("9 March 1972RA", which now it doesn't match). That's a lot of contradicting. So, yeah, the quotation is currently incorrect regardless of which source version you go with (Senn or Behar), and now stands as WP:SYNTH... and is also WP:OVERCITEd.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You are implicitly claiming, without actually coming out and saying so, that Richard Behar and the extensive fact-checking team at TIME manufactured a quote. There is zero chance of this. The editors anticipated the potential of legal action prior to publication. The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power is easily amongst the most heavily litigated pieces of journalism in history. All the cases against the author and various publishers were dismissed.

You claim Senn 1990 is cited, and it contradicts Passos, Behar, and Harman.

It doesn’t contradict them. There are ellipses in the quote in Senn and in the others. Neither Senn, Passos, Beit-Hallahmi, Harman nor Behar claim to be giving a complete version of the document. In fact their use of ellipsis indictes explicitly that they are quoting it in part.

It is currently a synthesis, but only because you inappropriately altered it so it no longer matches the Behar and Passos sources cited. Complaining about the problem you introduced is a waste of time: we can simply go back to before you created the problem.

You claim, erroneously, to have presented evidence that the 1972 Hubbard version [is] published in book form in 1976, which is a reprint of the 1974 first edition. There is no evidence of this, and you’ve presented nothing to indicate as much. The original is an internal letter to subordinate Scientology staff. The books titled Management Series are works marketed by Hubbard as a secular management principles guide – "all an executive need know on the subject of how to manage an organization."

You have given no evidence this is a complete and unaltered version of the original bulletin/letter. The books are explicit that they are altered from one edition to the next, and one can see that the version of this document changes from one edition to the next. Looking at the differences it’s clear this includes removal of whole sections of text. There is no reason to believe the version in Management Series is a complete reproduction of the original, and every reason to believe it is a partial version, inclding that the Management Series was intended for a public audience, while the bulletin/letter was only for internal use.

You ask “what is the likelihood that Behar in 1991 would have been looking at the original bulletin/letter? He gives an extensive quote from it, so given how reliable TIME is as a source, I’d say 99.8-100%. Certainly, given how this website works, reliable enough to be included here. There are numerous holdings in private collections and university libraries of boxes of Scientology documents used by researchers.

How this website works is to report on the content of reliable secondary sources. What we don’t do is to find a different, later version of a document, the original of which is quoted by a secondary source - this later version of the document produced for an entirely different purpose and scrubbed for optics and public consumption - and then to claim on zero evidence, and in spite of evidence to the contrary, that it’s identical to the document referred to by the reliable secondary source, and that the reliable secondary source is lying. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Don't twist the basic facts. My one single edit fixed the quote to match two of the three cited sources: Senn and Beit-Hallahmi (and Hubbard). Then you made 5 edits in a row resulting in the current SYNTH. So don't sit here and accuse me now of being the one who created the current state of the quote in the article.

While doing your 5 edits, you snarked through the edit summaries: "this is part of the quote", "restore sourced text", "removed text not present in any of four cited sources", and "adding unsourced text to quotes is not 'correcting' it"—followed by you posting on the talk page: This usually goes without saying, but a reminder that quotes require high-quality sourcing. Please don't add text to quotes that is not in the cited reliable secondary sources.

Even after that snarkfest, I still tried to explain why and how I decided to make that one single edit. But that wasn't good enough for you. Since then, you've dragged this thread into the weeds, called me a liar numerous times, and even complained that I used bolding for godsake (*facepalm*). This is all just worthless noise. All I had tried to do was correct what I saw as an incorrect quotation that didn't match the extant sources cited. Well maybe you like all this arguing, but I don't.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Refrain from fabricating accusations, such as twist[ing] the basic facts and you snarked through the edit summaries. Your edit did not "fix" the quote, because a. it had no need of fixing and b. you added unsourced material. I have not called you a liar, and because I haven't, you are unable to produce any evidence that I have. You are being rude and uncivil.

The version immediately prior to your disruptive edit contains a quotation that is entirely supported by citations to Time and to a peer-reviewed academic paper. None of the citations (nor any other source) deny this is an accurate quotation. So it's simply a fact that you are the one who created the current state of the quote in the article.

In reality, the edit summary texts you quote are not "snarked through" but statements of fact. It is part of the quote. The edit did restore sourced text. The edit did remove text not present in any of the four cited sources. The addition of text that is not in the sources is adding unsourced text, and it isn't correcting the quote.

Your argument boils down to the view that the highly regarded news publication Time manufactured a quote. Your evidence for this is that the organisation that produced the internal bulletin, from which this quote is taken, later published a book on management principles which does not contain this quote. It's a very weak argument, and your original research on this is not persuasive and certainly does not suggest to a reasonable person that Time and Richard Behar invented a quote. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2024

Scientology describes itself as a religion that was founded in the 1950s by L. Ron Hubbard. At the core of Scientology is a belief that each human has a reactive mind that responds to life's traumas, clouding the analytic mind and keeping us from experiencing reality. Vikas nalage (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That would need strong sourcing. While that being a belief , a far reaching statement making it a singular item and, "at the core" is quite a stretch, and treating "scientology" as a monolith. Also, since Scientology is so many different things, it would probably need calibration e.g. "at the core of it's teachings" or something like that.North8000 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Things like a sect, a cult, a company, an organisation of organised criminality. Things like that. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Not disputing what you wrote but it's not really useful for this edit request. Actually I was just discussing the contents of the edit request. The more specific appropriate response is that of M.Bitton below. Edit requests need to be very specific as described below. Not just a general idea that somebody else needs to develop a specific edit for. If anyone wants to discuss general ideas/suggestions, that is welcome in article talk, an edit request is not the place to do it. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"Very long" tag

I agree that the article is too long. Opening a thread here in which to put comments and engage in discussion.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I wish to start by pointing out a goal from WP:CANYOUREADTHIS:

Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion: an article should have clear scope, be well organized, stay on topic, and have a good narrative flow.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That inevitably leads to the idea of a top level article and top level sub-articles beneath it. Which then leads to the fact that we basically have two top level articles (this and Scientology beliefs and practices)which are 90% duplications of each other. And this is inherent in the title because "practices" is 80% of what Scientology is. And we have many many sub articles but no organized usable set that this areticlecan me made more dependent on. My thought for a 2 year plan is to make / keep this article as the top level one and decide on 4-6 main top level sub articles are just beneath it. And "Beliefs and Practices" needs to be changed somewhow. Maybe refine / clarify it to only practices that are very closely related to beliefs. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree re: Sci beliefs and practices and this article. It should be merged into this one, in my view. The Church of Scientology and Scientology in religious studies sections ought to be considerably shorter. The controversies section ought not to exist (as per WP:STRUCTURE): its parts should be incorporated into the main narrative about the movement/scam. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Left: Single main article. Right: Two main articles.

Please tell me if I'm interpreting this correctly; I made the drawings to help illustrate. It seems like we have been treating Scientology as a topmost article in a hierarchical structure similar to the left diagram (with 3 primary child-articles below it). It seems that North suggests continuing this style but to make the topmost article more of a WP:general overview article and less of a duplicate of "beliefs" article. It seems that Cambial is proposing Scientology be the container for beliefs and practices, and there is no single topmost article, or perhaps Scientology and Church of Scientology hold topmost status (like the diagram on the right). Am I on the right track? I have been viewing the Scientology article as an overview article like in the left diagram, and wonder if this difference in viewpoint is why Cambial and I have had disagreements over this article. After looking at some other religions and how they have structured their articles, I see the "beliefs" article is their topmost article with no overview above it. I say "topmost", but only because their various navbars and sidebars use the "belief" name rather than the "church" name, but entry into the collection of articles is not necessarily a top-down approach.

Using the Scientology article for beliefs would allow us to trim much content, though I have a few concerns:

1. By assigning "beliefs" as a topmost article instead of having an overview article, does it grant the scientology belief system a broader recognition than its one-to-one correlation with the Church of Scientology? (I consider the Freezone to be a very minority offshoot; an afterthought.)
2. Many of the "practices" are specific to the Church of Scientology organization (RPF, suppressive declarations, war on psychiatry) and are not (though they sort of are) general "beliefs" of "Scientology" (if one were to generalize it as a belief system). Most of those "practices" fall under controversies/criticisms. Or do we separate practices into "red volume" material (auditing and training) versus "green volume" material (administrative actions... which would include everything about ethics/justice—the source of most of the horrific actions/practices COS engages in—as well as recruiting, sales, marketing, fundraising, public outreach, management, and legal contracts)? Where do we draw the line between practice of belief and practice of policy (which is also their belief, because of KSW1)? Perhaps this entanglement is why I have favored a top-down single overview article approach to the collection of articles as a way to tie together Scientology and Church of Scientology.

Food for thought.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO "Scientology" should be the top level article. One comment about trying to organize this. Without getting into a categorization debate, I don't think that the usual structure for covering a church is applicable. A church is usually centric on a set of beliefs, and so beliefs can be covered as such. For Scientology IMO this is not the case. Further, Scientology as a whole has aspects of being an (generic term) organization (or somewhat a set of organizations), a church, a business, a set of practices, a disparate set of beliefs, arguably a cult, a central person and their teachings/writings which are a central defining part of the organization. I think that we need to acknowledge this unusual situation when trying to organize coverage. Again, without getting into categorization debates, structurally it is an organization which is a combination of all of the above things. Structurally, I think that free zone is structurally just a tiny off shoot of the organization which uses some of the organization's beliefs and practices and should not affect our overall planning on coverage on what is actually the described agglomeration where the only term broad enough to think about is "organization" North8000 (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree about this being the top-level, and that there is no reason to look to structures from other articles. My view is that this article is not and ought not to be about organisations, but about what the opening sentence says: the set of ideas [beliefs and activities], and a movement that follows those ideas. That movement as a whole specifically not being an organisation, insofar as it is disorganised. You're right that we obviously cannot ignore that CoS organisation is by some margin the most publicly visible part of that movement (and, historically, its source). But we can't say that it's representative of the whole. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I know that you have disputed my use of the word "organization" but if you knew the limited way I intended it perhaps you would not. I just meant it as the only vague-enough term to include all of the above listed things. Nothing more. If it will clear it up, I'll use the word "agglomeration" instead. So, when when are trying to figure out coverage structure we need to recognize that Scientology is an agglomeration of all of the above things. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that clarification, and agree. I think the distinction is useful: Scientology (the non-ideas meaning) is an agglomeration (nebulous, disparate, but with common characteristics); Church of Scientology is an organisation (connected legal entities, has a CEO, etc). Cambial — foliar❧ 13:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So if agree on "Scientology" being the top level article, IMO we need a short list of top level sub articles which it can be dependent upon/ closely coordinated with . I think that one good candidate is the current "beliefs & practices" article except trim "practices" to only those closely related to beliefs. (which I think are inseparable from beliefs anyway) So it would include things like auditing but not things like "fair game" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

North8000, where do you suggest the administrative practices go?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Subconscious command-like recordings

The description of engrams as subconscious command-like recordings recently added to the lead is not in the article body, nor in Auditing (Scientology), Engram (Dianetics), nor Scientology beliefs and practices. I don't dispute that it could be an accurate summary of how secondary sources describe the concept. But we should ensure this is sourced (particularly "command-like"). I'm not saying we must have sources that use this exact phrase by any means, but we should have sources that describe the engram concept in similar terms, and this description needs to be in the article body. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request / content dispute / re auditing sessions

Change: A fee is charged for each session of "auditing".

to: A fee is charged for auditing.

I have twice attempted to correct the information, but Cambial Yellowing reverted it here and here. I believe Cambial Yellowing is unable to correctly evaluate this issue considering their edit summaries, such as the derisive personal opinion about auditing "let's not assume this actually occurs when it's just a made-up lie", the incorrect "make clear it's pay-per-hour", and the snide comment to me while still being incorrect "nevertheless, this is not a one-time payment" (oh yes it is). I am tired of dealing with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR games. Someone else (besides Cambial) should make the determination of this content dispute.

Reasons for the change: The longer sentence is incorrect; the shorter sentence is correct. The longer sentence makes it seem like scientology auditing sessions are one hour long (or some fixed period), and paid per-session like you might find in psychology counseling. Scientology auditing sessions are not one hour long, nor fixed; they could be 5 minutes, or they could be several hours long. A Scientologist purchases auditing in blocks of 12.5 hours, called an "intensive". Intensives have long been paid in advance, and at the end of each session the used minutes during the session are deducted from the number remaining on account. It is administered like retainer fees in professions like lawyers and accountants. Before starting an auditing program, scientologists must purchase in advance the estimated number of intensives the case supervisor told them they would probably need for that program. That might be a much as 4, 8 or more intensives (50 or 100 hours or more). The Church of Scientology is suppose to deliver one intensive (12.5 hrs) per person per week. Early on in COS history, an "intensive" meant auditing within a single week, and sometimes that target was 25 hours of auditing in a single week per individual. So one session does not equal one hour like is common in psychology therapy. (Side note re stats: Registrars count their stats as dollars income (however many intensives they could sell that week); HGCs count one "paid start" each time a 12.5-hr intensive is started; auditors count "well done auditing hours".)

Here are just some of the sources to back up what I have written.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in the sentence A fee is charged for each session of "auditing" makes it seem like scientology auditing sessions are one hour long. You evidently accept that an hourly/time-based rate is charged for auditing, so the sentence is not incorrect, as you claim. Your increasingly tiresome repetitive charge of ownership lacks merit, so there's no reason to respond to it. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

References